From questioning status-quo ideologies in Sri Lankan higher education to navigating her PhD journey at University of British Columbia (UBC), inaugural Oxford EMI Emerging Researcher Award winner Osanka Rathnasiri highlights the power of critical research in making higher education more equitable.

One year ago at the 6th EMI Symposium in Oxford, Osanka Rathnasiri received the inaugural Oxford EMI Emerging Researcher Award. Her talk challenged dominant assumptions about English Medium Instruction (EMI) in Sri Lankan higher education, shedding light on the subtle ways English functions as both linguistic capital and gatekeeper.

A year later into her PhD at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada, we caught up with Osanka to talk about her continuing research, and how that week in Oxford reshaped her research path.

Interviewer: It’s been a year since you received the inaugural Oxford EMI Emerging Researcher Award for your talk “Language Ideologies in EMI at a Sri Lankan State University: A Case Study” at the 6th EMI Symposium in Oxford. Could you tell us a little about what that presentation was about?

Osanka: Yes, it’s indeed been a year since this incredible honour was awarded for my presentation. In this talk, I investigated the reproduction of language ideologies by exploring the perceptions and beliefs towards the English language held by faculty and first-year undergraduates of an EMI programme in Medicine at a public university in Sri Lanka. Data for this case study were generated from an open online survey, semi-structured one-to-one interviews, and identity portraits with students. 

This study revealed the reproduction of dominant language ideologies such as English as linguistic capital in Medicine, with subtle but powerful forms of colonial ideologies whereby the knowledge of medicine and the identity of a doctor were being largely tied to the English language. 

It also revealed that there was very little awareness about differences between English as an additional language (EAL) classes and EMI courses, perceiving EMI as EAL by reproducing a common neoliberal ideology that EMI inherently develops English language knowledge and skills through immersion. 

More importantly, English was found to be commonly perceived as ‘a neutral tool’ or a ‘skill’, often overlooking its sociopolitical and ideological dimensions as well as overpowering local languages despite the multilingual realities in the context.

Interviewer: Fascinating. And what first inspired you to research this topic and context?

Osanka: Thank you. In the EMI research landscape, Sri Lanka is an emerging context in the global South.

I think its public higher education context is quite unique in that university education is state-funded and university admission is through a highly competitive national exam based on meritocracy, where English is often not an entry requirement. However, upon entry, most undergraduate programmes (especially in STEM) are mandatory EMI and, as is the case with many EMI contexts worldwide, EMI provision and enactment is highly diverse. This background becomes quite interesting as we need context-specific understandings of how English functions as a powerful but subtle gatekeeper in higher education, and I think language ideologies in EMI is a very important starting point. 

For me, ‘language ideologies’ has been a topic of interest since my master’s research, which explored university students’ reticence and ambivalence towards using English, through the lenses of ideology, identity, and investment. In my career as a language lecturer at a public university in Sri Lanka, I’ve worked with multilingual students in several EMI programmes, and my experience has been that even though English is both ideological and political, especially considering Sri Lanka as a postcolonial state, these aspects are often overlooked in everyday EMI settings. 

There’s a considerable amount of work on the positioning of English in Sri Lanka focusing on language ideologies and politics of English, but the scholarship on EMI in Sri Lankan higher education seems to be mostly associated with linguistic, pedagogical, or institutional challenges on the one hand, and on the other hand, academic literacy. I see language ideologies as the bridge between these two foci of scholarship as it helps us examine the politics of English and EMI. In my work, I like to engage with exploring and questioning dominant assumptions, discourses, ideologies, and imaginations surrounding EMI, the ones that seem to be driving EMI as the normative choice for higher education in contemporary Sri Lanka.

Interviewer: Presenting at well-attended, international events like the EMI Symposium in Oxford is a major milestone for any researcher. How did it feel to present at the event? 

Osanka: Absolutely. Last year’s EMI Symposium was the first international conference I’ve ever attended in person. When I was in Sri Lanka, I had presented at international conferences, including BAAL, virtually. This alone made the EMI Symposium special for me, and it was even more special because it was fully committed to EMI.

I remember I was both nervous and excited presenting at the symposium, but this has been a topic that was so close to my heart, I guess I presented very spontaneously. Also, the fact that Julie Dearden and Professor Heath Rose attended my presentation was, honestly, a little terrifying to think about at the beginning, but I fondly remember how engaging and supportive they were in their interaction and feedback during and after the presentation. Having the opportunity to meet, listen to, and engage with leading and emerging scholars in EMI, including fellow graduate students, I felt a genuine sense of belonging. This whole experience meant to me as much as the award did. 

Interviewer: What were your biggest ‘aha!’ moments or key takeaways from the event?

Osanka: I would say the biggest ‘aha!’ moments for me came from connecting with fellow EMI researchers from all around the world. Among many others, I remember thoroughly enjoying the two plenaries by Dr. Ikuya Aizawa and Dr. Rafael de Souza Timmermann and feeling resonated entirely with their presentations on how much the role of language and language support, which are often overlooked, matter in EMI. I was also fascinated by a paper presentation by Dr. Sarah Hopkyns and her colleagues, who employed duo-ethnography, an approach that was quite new to me.

Engaging with the global EMI research community, I could realistically understand how EMI, entangled with internationalisation, coloniality, neoliberalism, and other forces, can contribute to educational inequities in various ways. As a language lecturer from Sri Lanka, I’ve always thought mandatory EMI, without critical awareness about language, its politics, and adequate language support, where students are often held responsible for their own language learning and EMI success is quite problematic. It was eye-opening to see such issues were not only confined to my own context and that there are many scholars who are actively working on equity issues in EMI.

Interviewer: Looking back, what did receiving the Oxford EMI Emerging Researcher Award mean to you personally?

Osanka: I guess I’m being vulnerable in saying this, but personally, receiving this award meant so much to me. It took me a bit of time, honestly, to accept that I won this award and that it mattered. The recognition made me believe in myself more and gave me renewed confidence in my voice and in what I can contribute. This is not to say I didn’t believe in myself, but I’m often my harshest critic, and a period of burnout before I started my PhD had affected my confidence more than I realised. 

Being admitted to the PhD in Language and Literacy Education at UBC in my first attempt as a first-generation graduate student, attending my first in-person international conference at Oxford, and receiving this great honour were all significant confidence boosters. 

Beyond the award itself, the whole experience I had at the symposium, gave me a fresh perspective on my doctoral journey. It gave me the courage to transition to a new supervisor, Professor Ryuko Kubota, who I greatly admire and whose work is more aligned with my own interests and whom I greatly admire. I feel deeply grateful for all of it. 

Interviewer: You mentioned in a previous email to us that this entire experience has shaped your thinking. In what ways has that experience and the recognition influenced your doctoral journey and research focus over the past year and what are your future plans?

Osanka: Yes, I guess that has to do with me recognising my specific interests in EMI. The experiences I’ve had as a language lecturer in Sri Lanka have been quite challenging, and I had felt like the issues I had long noticed in my own context—ideologies embedded in everyday discourses about language in higher education, EMI seemingly privileging certain students while marginalising others, uneven language support and critical language awareness, or English being a non-admission requirement yet a mandatory medium of education—were not quite adequately explored in depth in Sri Lanka. 

Attending this symposium helped me understand equity issues in EMI are my true and specific scholarly interests, and this past year, I’ve been specifying what I wish to study for my PhD. My doctoral research sits at the intersection of institutional imaginaries and ideologies, student experiences, access, and equity in EMI in Sri Lankan higher education. I want to explore how language-mediated epistemic access in EMI shapes privilege and marginality. I hope this is something challenging and interesting. 

I am currently in my second year of my doctoral programme, and I am now at the stage of comprehensive exams. My immediate plan is to work towards advancing to candidacy by the end of this year.

With the recognition of the award, I was invited by Dr. Furkan Kir to deliver a presentation at the PhD Community Event of the EMI Special Interest Group of BAAL in June, and I had the opportunity to connect with fellow EMI PhD students from various countries there. These days, I am also slowly writing up a paper on what I presented there, on rereading EMI literature in Sri Lankan higher education through the lenses of imaginaries and ideologies.

Interviewer: As the inaugural recipient of this award, you’ve set a path for other up-and-coming scholars in the field of EMI. One year later, what advice would you give to other emerging EMI researchers who are looking to make an impact in the field?

Osanka: I’m not sure if I can give great advice, especially when I’m also still unlearning and relearning in this doctoral journey, but one thing I can say is to never let your passion fade away. It’s your passion that’s going to help you observe and question some of the most ‘normalised’ things and make you want to understand and do better. Hold on to that. 

Thanks

We want to express our sincere thanks to Osanka for sharing her journey so far with us, and we look forward to seeing where her research takes her next.

Blog subject

Osanka Rathnasiri is a PhD candidate at University of British Columbia (UBC) with an academic background in education policy, teaching English as an additional language (TEAL), linguistics, and English language and literature. Her experiences as a lecturer in EMI contexts in Sri Lanka led to her interest in reflexive practices, social justice, language ideologies, identity, investment, power, and politics in language and literacy education.